Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> Yes. "Logographic" means that what the symbol encodes is a word (a
> morpheme, to be more precise).

This sounds fine.

> Or, as C. F. Hockett put it, a logographic system is a syllabary
> that distinguishes homophones.

This sounds silly...

How can Egyptian writing be called a "syllabary" (whatever it does or does
not distinguish semantically)?

Even Chinese characters, as used in Japanese, are in no way "syllabic":
several On readings are by-syllabic, and Kun readings can be several
syllables long.

_ Marco